Midnight in Paris - so THAT'S what everyone's been raving about!

He had me at Scott and Zelda Fitzgerald. 

From the start of Woody Allen’s latest effort, “Midnight in Paris”, I was hooked.  Sometimes film magic happens, and this is one of those instances.  He could have put Kate Hudson in it and I wouldn’t have minded.

I’ve always been a big fan of a director not pandering down to his audiences, and Woody certainly doesn’t do that here.  His Parisian landscape is full of references to artists and playwrights, literary juggernauts presented almost exactly as I’d imagined them from their stories – even though the actors themselves are all familiar.

The writing made me laugh out loud several times, which is something that I never do in a film.  Usually only British films can make me laugh, or perhaps an old slapstick.  Perhaps that’s where I found the charm – I’ve always thought of the 20s and the 30s as “my era”, a time of raunchy partying with stunning dresses where you basically dance (and drink) your life away.  Never mind that pesky little stock market thing in ’29.

This is a film of details – the costumes are perfect, the casting is perfect, the script is perfect.  Usually I’m not a big fan of the two leads – Owen Wilson and Rachel McAdams.  I’d read that Woody didn’t even know who they were until he was flipping channels and found “Wedding Crashers”, and decided they’d be perfect.  And they are.

Owen Wilson plays the funny guy that we always knew he could be, the sympathetic, bumbling hero clearly about to marry the wrong girl, who just wants to appease everyone.  McAdams plays the bitchy fiancée, led about by her parents and their money and mesmerized by Paul (played wonderfully by Michael Sheen), who has got to be the most intentionally pretentious character I’ve ever seen portrayed in film.  Paul’s an expert in EVERYTHING.  I found him hysterical because there are people I know just like him.

But at the heart of the movie is Paris itself.  The film is an ode to Paris, similar to the way he honored London and the way that he’s always honored New York.  If there’s ever been a director who knows how to make a city a character all its own, it’s Woody Allen.  Personally, I’ve never wanted to go there.  I’ve now changed my mind – if for no other reason than to see the Monet in some museum that takes up a whole room.  (I really hope that does exist; if not, my heart will be broken.) 

The first several minutes of the film are nothing but location shots set to an upbeat score.  Everything is beautiful and harmonious.  The Eiffel Tower is shown both in daytime and night in order to show its brilliance when it’s alighted.

Woody hasn’t been this good in years, and this film deserves every bit of praise that it’s gotten and more.  I hope the Academy remembers this one come January.

Origin Stories - One Lump or More?

Is it harder to tell one origin story or multiple origin stories within one film? That’s the question that Marvel Studios had to answer this summer. With “The Avengers” now shooting, it’s necessary to fill in movies for all the lead characters to fill in the gaps. But at the same time, they also decided to reboot the “X-Men” franchise. So this summer gives us not only “X-Men: First Class”, they also gave us “Thor” and “Captain America” (to be reviewed later).

What’s the better choice? Multiple storylines – by a long shot.

Before I go much further, let me explain that I HAVE read some of the comics, and I have always found Thor to be the most boring character. He has no real intellect, and his superpower is a hammer. He speaks using outdated language. His alter-ego is a doctor. Yawn.

The cinematic version of “Thor” is just as boring. The villain is Thor’s brother Loki, who eventually becomes Sub-Mariner, but we don’t go there. Here he just whines a lot and looks like Magneto when he’s having a bad hair day (but looks better than Anthony Hopkins, tragically miscast). As far as effects go, the world of Asgard is brightly colored with more gold than an Oscar celebration. But once we get to Earth, everything falls flat. Natalie Portman puts in an appearance as geeky researcher Jane (the love interest), but unfortunately she has no chemistry with the lead. Kenneth Branagh would have done better to make another period piece than this dreck.

Conversely, “X-Men: First Class” is quite entertaining. It’s respectful to its predecessors but still stands as its own entity. I wanted to know the origin of the different mutants, some of which I was familiar with; others not.

The only downside is the involvement of the CIA Agent, played by Rose Byrne. Although I love her to death as an actress, her part wasn’t necessary. We know that the Government will get involved in all matters mutant-related, but to take it to that level was unneeded. James McAvoy NAILS being Professor Xavier, but Michael Fassbender steals the movie as Magneto, giving him a human side I hadn’t before seen. January Jones tries to show that she’s more than just Betty Draper, and she pulls off Femme Fatale Emma Frost as well as can be expected.

I know the previous “X-Men” franchise films were full of cameos, and the two here are right on the money. This film doesn’t suffer under the weight of any one lead character; it is a true ensemble film. That makes it even better. We don’t have to suffer through seeing everything from one point of view; it’s possible to see the story as a whole, which makes it more entertaining.

I concede that the Marvel Universe needs to be expanded. I just prefer the ensemble way to the solo variety. And I doubt VERY seriously that “Captain America” will be changing my mind on that.

Taking a New "Stab" at an Old Blog

I’m officially better now, so I figured it was time to take a new “stab” at writing. I figured I would start with something easy - “Scream 4”. It’s been awhile since I’ve been asked my cinematic opinion, and even longer since I wrote one, so here we go.

There are rules for these kinds of things, as listed below.

1. I cannot be totally objective about anything. I have my biases and will not change them. Take me as I am, people.
2. I only watch the films that interest me, unless it’s Oscar- nominated, of course.
3. The number of films I watch may increase or decrease depending on how redbox happy we become. I have watched two films in the last twenty four hours, with three more on deck.
4. I may or may not write up every film I see. It depends on how much time and energy I have to write.
5. If you want to know the plot of a film, you can go elsewhere. You don’t need me to tell you that. I will tell you my thoughts on the film, or my experience relating to the film, and THAT’S what you can’t get elsewhere.

Now, back to the review. I loved the original series. I thought it revitalized horror as a genre and gave it a wit and depth it had previously been missing. By the third film, it was a little tired, but that was still ok.

I’ve always loved Kevin Williamson’s writing, going all the way back to the sometimes cringe-inducing “Dawson’s Creek”. Unfortunately, Kevin’s now matured with the rest of us. Some of the dialogue is just bad, and when delivered by actors of basically two generations it can get rather tedious. There are a few one-liners that still work, but there’s an over-the-top factor here I don’t remember from the other films.

The first scene from the film was basically unnecessary, although it’s always nice to see one of my “Pretty Little Liars” girls (Lucy Hale). The second celebrity bit was HYSTERICAL and could have been my favorite part. By the time we actually get to the new story itself, I was a bit confused. Then again – I get confused often these days.

The old players continue to play their parts well – except for David Arquette, who drove me up a wall as normal. Can this guy do NOTHING normally? I understand that his character is exaggerated, but does it have to go THAT far?

Finally, did I guess the killer? Nope. That I attribute to Wes Craven and to Kevin Williamson. Not many films these days can keep me up until midnight or hold my complete attention, but this one did. For that, I thank them. How can they repay me? Don’t start a new franchise. As Ms. Prescott said, “Don’t f*** with the original”. You’ve done your remake – now let it be. But I’m pretty sure that won’t be the case.

Random Side Note: I'd like to thank my boyfriend Lou for helping me get back into film. and for telling me for months that I would and should write again. I love you.

Purely Personal Post....

I’ve been reading this book of essays written by Andy Rooney. For those who don’t know the name (and are probably under twenty-five), he used to be on “60 Minutes”. He’s a pretty famous writer, who usually wrote about 1500 words on some silly subject. I got the book for two reasons. The first is that I don’t really like novels right now; they require too much attention. The second is that I remember every time I watched “60 Minutes” (the few instances I did), I found his segment funny – and I like things that make me laugh.

In the course of the book, I found the following quote which I will repeat verbatim (it’s long, be patient): “There’s nothing mystical or magical about being a writer. A writer is just a person who writes something. There are almost no people who are not dentists who can fix teeth, but there are a lot of people who aren’t professional writers who write very well. This is one of the reasons why being a writer is tougher than being a dentist.”

Why did I find this amusing? Again – two reasons. One: I consider myself to be a very good writer. I’d say excellent sometimes, but that’s just immodest (and up to whomever reads this). Two: I haven’t written a word since the beginning of April, which is very unusual, borderline unacceptable.

Those of you reading this know the reason why I’m sure, but I’m putting it in print anyway. I fought cancer, and I beat it. Don’t get me wrong, on most days the after-cancer (as I call it) usually kicks my ass. I have surgery scars that are a pain in the stomach (they aren’t technically in my ass). I take multiple meds a day. I get tired easily, and I am currently embarrassed to go out, because I have a stupid bag attached to me 24/7. I can’t eat what I want anymore, which sucks for the newly discovered foodie in me. I’m starting chemo AGAIN in forty eight hours. Ironically enough, that’s almost as long as the treatments. I will continue all of these processes probably until the first part of 2012.

Some parts of having cancer at age 39-40 for me are just like reliving my teenage years and early twenties. I have the same fashion sense I did back then – only now it materializes in yoga pants and long t-shirts. My eating disorder from the 1980s came back with a vengeance. I was scared to eat anything when I got home from the hospital, and spent literally days having dry heaves after I put anything in my mouth (including Gatorade, which used to be my salvation). The panic attacks I used to have in my early twenties came back too. If you’ve never had a “mean red” (thanks, Audrey/Blake), it means that you literally can’t do anything (including moving) for total fear and have to just sit on the floor and rock back and forth. The good part is that my wonderful doctor gave me medicine which takes both of those feelings away, and as long as I take my meds regularly I’m in good shape.

But I also found out that there are some positive things that came out of this experience. One of the things I didn’t realize is the number of friends I have. Some of these are people who I would have just considered acquaintances but now check in with me very regularly. Some of these are people that I thought were friends that I now realize that could just be friends for life. I have remade contact with someone I used to be close to many years ago. I have issued forgiveness to myself for some things that happened in my past. You learn who cares and who doesn’t (as well as what matters and what doesn’t) when you sit in a hospital bed for several days.

My boyfriend and I have reached a plethora of plateaus in our relationship. He and my mother have finally reached détente. He’s been there for me as I’ve cried and as I’ve laughed. He’s held my hand through many sleepless nights, my hair as I puked, and he’s fanned my bottom with a picture of Johnny Depp (which doesn’t indicate my opinion on Mr. Depp at all). We are finally in a place where we are both grown up and mature and able to handle whatever life throws at us. As I tell him often, he didn’t sign up for the “in sickness and in health” but he’s handling all of this with a sense of grace that I didn’t know existed. Plus, going through all this with him has finally given us the healthy relationship that we’ve been trying to build for over several years.

I’m also working through some issues with the rest of my family. For many years, I felt ostracized from them. Now I realize that I did some of this myself. With maturity comes a sense of taking ownership of one’s deeds and misdeeds. I am also working to rectify this – one person at a time. I don’t need to make amends; I simply need to show up. And the competition that I thought was there was there only in my head. Yes, my family is confusing and we’d make a great sitcom (starring Tina Fey as me, of course – thanks, Sherry) but I wouldn’t trade them for anything.

Lastly, my mom and I are finally in a good place. We’ve actually been in the same house for several days without having an argument. I am starting to understand what makes my mom tick, and although I may not always understand it, I am learning how to deal with it (and in some cases, how to appreciate it). My mom is stronger than I give her credit for sometimes, and I do feel like I draw part of my strength from her. We are both learning different definitions of "advice" - she gives it, and for the first time in my life, I realize that sometimes she IS right. :)

Everyone tells me that I’m an amazing person; something which I’ve never really seen (and still don’t). People say that I’ve handled all this in a remarkable way – but really, what choice do I have? I’m an overachiever by birth. Does anyone REALLY think I was going to let cancer get the better of me? Chemo may give me chemohead, but it doesn’t take my intelligence forever; it just gets a much-needed vacation (as do I, from work). I have learned how to humble myself. I do need help sometimes, and the only way to let others know I need help is to ask for it. If I do that, the amount of help and support I get astounds me.

I don’t know if it’s the cancer, turning 40, or finally having the time to start thinking and reflecting, but I’m actually pretty ok. My life has gotten much simpler now – a metaphorical cleaning of the closet (thanks, Marshall). I know deep within me that I can get through all of this and come out stronger on the other side. The only way out is through (thanks, Alanis), and you’re just as far in as you’ll ever be out (thanks, Anna). Sometimes clichés and song lyrics are the only things that work – then again clichés are overused because they’re all true, and the song lyrics I just stole.

I can’t say enough good things about all the people who have helped me through this – professional and otherwise. You all know who you are. I love you all, thank you all, and finally I hope that someday I can repay you all, under much better circumstances.

A solid (and temporary) end to theatricals

For my last theatrical film for an undetermined amount of time, where else would I go but my local arthouse? Everytime I go to the arthouse, I think I want to come back every week – I don’t, but I should. It reminds me that film as a medium is so much bigger than the multiplex and even bigger than Netflix. I always see at least one trailer of I film I didn’t know but now want to see. (In this case it’s “Beginners” with Christopher Plummer and Ewan McGregor.) The crowds are older and more respectful. There may not be cell service. In this particular theater, you take an escalator up just to get to the ushers. It’s the home of my favorite studio – Focus Features.

Speaking of Focus Features, the film I saw was the remake of “Jane Eyre”. Even sitting in the third or fourth row of an almost sold out theater, the film was great. It was exactly what I wanted, and a bit more than I expected.

I’m ashamed to admit that I’ve never read the book – although I do want to change that soon. (I added it to my growing book queue.) This means that I didn’t know the story, and that puts me at a big of a disadvantage given the out of order storytelling. But this is the literature of the Brontes and Austen, so it’s not THAT hard to follow along.

The best thing about the film is the performance of Mia Wasikowska. With each role young Mia takes, she seems to be becoming a better actress. Although most people know her as “Alice” from Burton’s recent version, she’ll always be Sophie from “In Treatment” to me. I remember thinking at the time that, if she made the right choices in roles and in life, she’d be one to watch. She’s rapidly confiming my opinion.

For me, there’s a charm to these English period pieces – the many remakes of “Pride and Prejudice”, “Wuthering Heights”, “Sense and Sensibility” et cetera that updated stories just can’t match. Yes, I know that Jane will end up with Rochester, and that Elizabeth will find security and equality with Mr. Darcy, but that doesn’t matter. I fully believe and wallow in their trials and tribulations (which should be an Austen book as well). Perhaps it’s because those characters all have a sense of individuality and intelligence sorely missing from modern stereotypical romances. And as an added bonus, people keep their clothes on!

I also appreciated the dialogue. Again, having not read the book, I’m sure that Jane’s barbs were quite sharp, but not quite as sharp as this version would entail. I believe that it’s the combination of all of these things that make the contemporary remake hold up just as well to any other version.

Side Note – I’d still like to see Jane Eyre/Rochester take on Elizabeth Bennett/Darcy in a literary tag team match to see who is the strongest couple. Or maybe I’m just watching too much WWE, which is just as mind-numbing as what passes for

No New Story, Morning Glory

When I first started this blog, I decided I would write once a week, or four times a month. I have only missed that self-imposed deadline twice - when my mother was ill, and when I was waiting for my newest grand-niece.

I pride myself on the fact that it doesn't take me long to write one of these pieces, usually about a half an hour. So it's not like I'm making a huge investment. Most weeks I really enjoy writing. I compile the ideas in my head throughout the week, so that by the time I actually sit down in front of the PC the words just pour out. I do revise most of what I write, because I also have a self-imposed word count (ever the overachiever).

It's not hard to write the raves or the rants - those are easy. My viewpoints, as I've often been told, are quite strong. The hardest ones to write are the ones that are in the middle - the averages ones. Such is the story with "Morning Glory".

The film is neither good nor bad. It was advertised as a "smarter" romantic comedy, one that was more about female empowerment than anything else. It was also advertised as a comedy. Given the cast and the fact that the writer of the script also wrote "The Devil Wear Prada", I figured I'd get something that was above average. I was quite wrong.

The film is so predictable that I kept it running while I cleaned both my kitchen and my bathroom and still knew exactly where I was in the story, and exactly where I'd end up. I can't exactly say I wasted my time, but I can say that it wasn't interesting in the slightest. Nor can I say that I laughed.

Where did it go wrong? First, Harrison Ford needs to be like Brett Favre and just retire already. He's too old for the leading man, and cannot pull off the old, cranky geezer. Diane Keaton tries with what she's given, but she isn't given much. Rachel McAdams is cute - there's no denying that. However, I'm still waiting for her to do something similar to "Married Life" - where cute isn't quite enough.

I guess the biggest problem I had with the film was that I didn't find it relevant. I don't watch morning TV. Before I go to work, I usually watch either hulu or ESPN. Most people I know use that time to clear their DVRs of whatever they missed the night before. And the plot was already covered by "Broadcast News" much better over twenty years ago.

Back then people cared about the news. Now they care about TMZ. I concede that it's above the standard rom-com, but not by much. I'll still take "The Devil Wears Prada" any day. Sometimes when you go to the same well too many times you come up dry, and that's exactly what happened here.

Icon Vs. Legend

An icon is on your computer desktop. You click it and a program starts automatically - no thought involved. You know which program you're opening because you recognize the icon. A legend is found on the bottom of a map. Before GPS, legends told you how far apart things were, and in which direction you needed to go. With Elizabeth Taylor's passing, we have lost not just an icon, but also a legend. It is important to know the difference.

I've read (and written) articles about the current state of film - how bad it is, how unoriginal, how so many "artists" are doing films for the paycheck or the awards. We have recognizable icons in the business today - Angelina Jolie, Julia Roberts, Brad Pitt and Johnny Depp. Supermarket tabloids tell all their innermost secrets, as long as they don't break confidentiality agreements. These people are movie stars - icons. They are not legends.

To be a legend, it's necessary to bring MORE to the table. Being easily recognizable makes you a movie star. It makes you famous. It can make you an icon - but nowhere near a legend. Legends are people like Clint Eastwood, who now directs as much as he acts. He got credit for giving a face lift to the genre that made him famous - the western. Another is Robert Redford - founder of Sundance. But it's not necessary to go behind the camera in order to be a legend. Paul Newman was a legend. His performances showed he wasn't just a great looking guy, he had talent and range.

True legends show you the way film is going. Whatever you may say about Elizabeth Taylor, you can't say she didn't have talent. From "National Velvet" where she stole a nation's heart to the ingenue in "Father of the Bride", giving Spencer Tracy as good as he was giving, she had the range. Plus, Taylor gets credit for being in (and almost dying for) one of the biggest box office flops ever - "Cleopatra". Talk about taking a risk!

But the one I remember most is "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf" - the movie showing her at her bloated, miserable, venomous best. When I first saw it I was rather young and didn't get it. Now I now it's a stellar performance, once seemed too private and exhausting to watch. The closest we have now is "Blue Valentine", and even that's not that close.

It's a shame today's audiences don't really care to know what good acting really is. We'd rather see the same people make the same films over and over. Or we'd rather remake films because no one remembered them the first time.

It's also a shame that, given their age, more legends are leaving us. There aren't many people to fill their shoes, and most aren't even trying. And I think that's the biggest reason today's cinema is directionless.

Lightening It Up

After many months of depressing but nonetheless Important Oscar films, it's time to take a minute and catch a breath. It's that time of year when days are longer, outside seems brighter, I wake to birds outside my window, baseball is ALMOST official, and I want to lighten up.

It's also catch up time. This is the time between Oscar and the Box Office Bonanza known as the Summer Movie Season. Plus, since I'm about to be out of work for awhile and resting often, I need to start updating my plethora of lists and getting back into a movie mood.

This week's column is brought to you by the letter "R" - as in "Red" and "Rango". Both have star power and lots of laughs. Coincidentally, neither film is particularly kid-friendly.

If "Red" was a kids movie, it would be called "Fun with Frank, Friends and Firearms". This is the perfect Oscar-summer segue movie. It includes Oscar winners (Helen Mirren and Morgan Freeman) and has as its lead a huge action star (Bruce Willis). That these people (and don't forget Mary Louise Parker) have kick ass, finely honed comedic timing is enhanced by the ubiquitous one liners scattered all over the script. I felt like a little kid watching an animated movie. I giggled alot and felt really upbeat when it was over.

"Rango" is a much more difficult film to describe. It's an animated movie which was treated as a live action movie. The actors didn't just read their lines into a microphone. The movie was actually acted out, and then animated. I think that's an original idea. Plus, there's also Johnny Depp. Given that the director was the same guy who gave birth to Jack Sparrow, this should be a match made in heaven.

Unfortunately, it's not. The film itself is erratic. I did act like a kid though. Sometimes I giggled a bit, and most of the time I squirmed in my seat, thinking it was too long. (Ironically enough, the kids in my screening did the same thing.) Is it funny? Sure. But it's not cute. The one-liners went over the head of the kids and I didn't really hear any adults laughing, just chuckling.
The biggest problem I have is that I can't figure out the target audience.

I think "Rango" is either a semi-successful experiment, or a very lengthy ad for the new "Pirates" film. (Yes I know one is Nickelodeon and the other is the D-word.) Now that I remember how funny and deadpan Depp is, I may actually re-evaluate that film.

March and April are always good cinematic months. I can watch all the DVDs I've missed (a rather long list now that video stores are gone), and I'm missing nothing at the theaters. There's nothing there to see. I can be a very patient person, so I'll just wait. There's an awful lot to see in the meantime.

Academy Award Apocalypse

During the recent Oscar telecast, I posted on Facebook three words I never thought I'd connect with the Oscars - I was bored. That's right - I said it. It was boring. From the films themselves to the winners to the speeches, right down to the "best" song performances, it was boring. I acutally turned off the television not long after they announced yet ANOTHER award for "The King's Speech" (but before the unnecessary choir).

I love Annie Hathaway to death, and in my opinion she can usually do no wrong, but this wasn't exactly the best gig for her. She did quite well with her musical number and she looked lovely in (almost) all her many ensembles, but having two non-comedic actors hosting the Oscars simply isn't a good idea. But Annie was fantastic compared to the wooden and hopelessly out of place James Franco.

The show was disjointed - showing montages that were irrelevant, and adding references that were stupid. And what WAS that Harry Potter/Twilight thing supposed to be?

But it wasn't all bad. It was great to watch Colin Firth give his acceptance speech. (Now, if Julianne Moore would give one that'd be fantastic!) Natalie Portman looked beautiful and was humbled, gracious and articulate - Mike Huckabee's comments be damned.

Some Oscar Rules remain firmly intact:
1. Portraying an English monarch will get you a nod, or possibly a win (unless you're Emily Blunt).
2. If your film has Nazi references, you'll get a Best Picture nod (unless it's Indiana Jones).
3. If it's a Pixar film, it's guaranteed Best Picture, Best Animated Film and Best Original Song nods. It will win two out of three.
4. If you are nominated in one year for a career defining film and lose, your next film will get you a win (unless you're Christopher Nolan).

Finally, the most important one - if your film is full of pompous, self-important people, and your film is outdated and irrelevant but is Uplifting with an Inspirational Message, you will win. Originality is not needed or encouraged.

Honestly, how many more films like "The King's Speech" need to be lauded? This film won't be remembered in ten years - hell, it won't be remembered in two. I thought the Oscars were supposed to be about defining a film that was different - that stood out. There wasn't a thing that stood out for me in this film - that ground has more tread on it than my new Goodyear tire.

During the Oscars, I was reading Entertainment Weekly. One of the featured articles was called "10 Ways to Fix Movies". I hope someone figures something out - and soon, because this past year was weak all the way around. And apparently I'm not alone in my viewpoint.

The Oscar Pass...and Why I Passed on Taking It

Some years ago I came up with the idea of an "Oscar Pass" - a "Skip this Film" card. Oscar Passes could be used once per year. The films I Passed on were overdone ("Munich"), contained a star I avoided ("Master and Commander"), or played too far away to see at the time ("Secrets and Lies").

This year, I was going to Pass on Danny Boyle's "127 Hours". Given the subject matter, and my current circumstances, the very LAST thing I wanted to watch was a film extolling The Survival Instinct. I think I already have that concept down.

But as the Oscars got closer, I decided I would try it. Boyle is, after all, a great director, and any film with his name had to be deeper than a two-sentence plot synopsis would indicate. And James Franco is nothing if not interesting. So I left this year's Oscar Pass in a drawer.

I'm glad I did. This isn't an easy film to watch. Being a horror veteran, it takes a lot to gross me out or make me squeamish. This film, however, had me turning my head several times, and way before the "money shot".

I can't image this was an easy film to make. The film literally and figuratively rests on the limbs of Franco. Normally with true stories, knowing the outcome makes the film boring or anticlimactic. In this case, knowing the final outcome was the only way I got through it. Franco gives a powerhouse performance, no doubt. It's too bad that it's an "In Any Other Year..." performance. But I have a feeling he'll eventually get his.

Combine the lead performance, the introduction of a video camera as a character/catalyst, and the tight framing, and you almost develop a sense of claustrophobia. I was expecting to go through the film thinking the main character was an idiot and rooting against him, as I have so many times before. I don't know if it's my age, my situation, or the fact that I actually "get it", but I was in tears by the closing credits.

I had a conversation with my other half shortly after the film ended. I said I couldn't believe after everything the main character went through, he still decided to continue climbing. He maintained that climbing is apparently part of who he is, and that he wasn't going to let fear beat him. If he never went back into a canyon, then he had been defeated. But he made a concession so that he wouldn't be in the same situation again. To me, that's the definition of growth - realizing you could be in the same situation, but taking an alternate action to make sure the outcome differs.

Perhaps Aron wasn't the only one who learned something from his predicament - which is why they make films about true stories like this in the first place.

This "Salt" Leaves a Bitter Aftertaste

There was an article printed this week where a high-placed Hollywood studio official decried Hollywood is not in the business of telling stories - they are in the business of making money. Most people realize an approach like this can't really sustain an industry for long (Take note, Peter Angelos!). To that official I reply that you may be in the business of making money, but given your current watered down product, and the price you demand for your "service", it's only a matter of time before people start catching on and staying home. It's already started.

I had a movie I wanted to watch for my first weekly Girls Night with a friend - "Red". We'd been planning this for weeks and we decided that was the film we wanted to see. However, I forgot to reserve it through Redbox online and by the time we went to get it, it wasn't there. So we settled for "Salt".

"Settle" describes this film perfectly. Let's talk about all the people who settled for this movie. Firstly, the studio. They were naive enough to actually think that this could be the start of a female-driven action franchise. Actually it could have been - twenty years or so ago. They locked up start Angelina Jolie, who settled for a paycheck. They hired writers who wanted to write about the villainous Russians, in a time when international cinematic villains are usually from the Middle East. That's story settling if I ever heard it (that doesn't involve Nazis, that is).

The second part of the article says that the reason films are unimaginative is that studio heads are my age - people who grew up with a lack of storytelling. They mention the creation of the "summer blockbuster" as the time when it all started to go downhill. It is true that "Salt" was released in July, during the height of the summer season, when Disbelief and Plausibility have also gone on vacation. However, I do have limits. Given the fact that it made under 125 million domestically, I'm not alone.

It's funny how the less you pay for something, the less you expect. There's really no such thing as a bargain. That's why Redbox is so popular. I won't pay 4.99 to see most things On Demand. I sure as hell won't pay 10.00 (or 13.00) to see them theatrically. But for 1.06 my standards do drop. Was it worth 1.06? Sure. My friend and I sat in her living room, and although we don't usually agree cinematically, we were right in synch with this one. We both agreed that it was ridiculous, and we groaned in all the same places.

But as we go into Oscar Week, let's remember that there's a time to settle, and a time to select. Here's hoping that Hollywood (and Mr. Angelos) eventually get the hint. I only have faith in one of them.

Companion Films - "The Social Network" and "Catfish"

I've been looking for a way to supplement Oscar Quest 2010-2011. After seeing most of the nominees, and being underwhelmed by most, I needed to find something more. So earlier this week, while in the shower (where I usually get my best ideas), I came up with the idea of a "Companion Film". Companion Films share the basic premise or theme, but present it in two totally different ways. I'm hoping if I find a Companion Film for each of the BP nominees, there will be SOMETHING that energizes me, just a little.

For example, take "The Social Network" and "Catfish". While I'm sure you've heard of the former, the latter has gone relatively unnoticed. It documents the story of Nev, who frequents Facebook and become attached to the "family" that he finds there. It starts with 8-yr old Abby, a talented painter and branches out to Abby's mother, half-sister and other family members. The entire experience is filmed by Nev's brother.

But, as the axiom goes, don't believe everything you read, or everything you hear. When Nev develops feelings for Abby's half sister Megan, he decides they should meet. Without giving anything away, let's say the results are surprising - for Nev and the viewer.

Personally, I get it. I had my years where I obsessed over my internet friends. I still have a few of them, and I've even met one personally. Although I never had any issues and the people I befriended were all upright and honest, that doesn't apply to everyone. Just like in real life, virtual life has its fair share of liars.

What I preferred about "Catfish" is that it's true. More than the other Facebook film, things weren't manipulated or sensationalized for effect. Even though I thought I knew where it was going, it still kept me entertained for its run time (about 90 minutes).

I also found the film relatable. Although I'm not on Facebook for my own reasons, I understand why other people are. I even understand the need for constant updating - on your phone, at work and now even in your car. It's just not for me at this stage of my life. Guess I miss the days where it wasn't necessary to announce you were going to the grocery store to buy milk. I also like the fact that I communicate with the people I know NOW, not twenty years ago. There's enough high schoolishness (yes, I made that up) in my life without having to correspond with someone I actually attended high school with. But that's my choice, and I realize it's not a popular one.

"Catfish" wasn't a film that was going to make the critical splash of "The Social Network". And that's really unfortunate, because I think it should have. It's a much better film, and I highly recommend it.

The (Anti) Climactic End to a Much Anticipated Trilogy

Usually the third film in a trilogy is the best. It ties up all the loose ends and provides a (usually) satisfying resolution. Think "ROTK". No matter which of the MANY endings you prefer, there's still a sense of completeness, like you've been through hell and back with these characters and now you're going your separate ways.

Or think "Return of the Jedi". Or maybe not. Or the worst example - "The Godfather, Part III". Or "The Dark Knight Rises". OK, so that one hasn't started shooting yet, but aren't you just SURE it'll be great? :)

So when I sat down last week to watch "The Girl Who Kicked the Hornet's Nest" from Netflix streaming, I couldn't help but wonder on which side it would fall.

I could technically review this film in one word - anticlimactic.

The first film in this set, "The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo", was gritty and felt like a 70s film. My favorite is the second film, "The Girl who Played with Fire". This is probably because it feels like an 80s film. It then logically follows that this film would feel like a 90s film, but it doesn't. It feels like a 90s television drama.

The problem isn't the acting or the story itself. It's more the tone of the film. I think by the third film you're used to Lisbeth's ways. And to see her stoically sit in a courtroom or in a jail cell simply doesn't fit. It feels like this film should have been about the chase to put Lisbeth into custody, not a courtroom battle to see how she can get away with a completely justified attempted murder. This film isn't action filled; it's dialogue filled. And that's a problem if you're not familiar with the Swedish judicial system.

Throughout the last third of this 2.5 hour film, I kept wondering how they were going to tie up all of the loose ends. How was the Blomquist/Salander relationship going to end? How will she clear her name and go on with her life? What kind of life would she have? The final "family" confrontation, however, was lame and uneventful. It seemed like Salander was settling for something.

As a member of the audience, the last thing I want to feel after almost eight hours of watching these characters is that they settled. It makes me feel like I, by extension, settled. And that doesn't make me happy. But upon further reflection, even though some of the plotlines were settled rather hurriedly, it seems that the relationship between Blomquist and Salander ends perfectly.

I'm glad that her story (partially) ends here. I'm actually interested to see how David Fincher interprets it all. I just hope he gives her (and me) a bit more satifaction in the end.

Is "The King's Speech" Worthy of an Oscar Night Acceptance Speech?

Oscar Quest 2011 continues. I only have a few more left to see. Earlier this week, I watched "The King's Speech", which is usually my (and the Academy's) favorite type of film. It fulfills all my usual requirements - solid acting, decent writing, and the whole England connection doesn't hurt. In addition to this, there's also references to Nazis - another Oscar Rule adherence.

But as I watched the film, I kept realizing that I was WATCHING A FILM. I didn't really feel any connection to the characters, and how can I? The film takes place in the 30s in England as a young king abdicates the throne to run off with a divorcee and leaves all of England (including his brother) with a challenge.

On the front cover of this week's "Entertainment Weekly", it says "King's Speech vs. Social Network". And that's what this year's Best Picture race comes down to, my friends. As usual, there's two films battling it out and eight "It's nice to be nominated"s. But the more Oscar conversations I have, it is being brought to my attention that there might be something more than that.

This comes down to one thing - old school vs new school. Does the Academy reward the stodgy, well-acted, outdated biopic or does it give the bald guy to the new kids in town, the ones who supposedly changed not just cinema, but society in general? What's more important - society then or society now?

But as far as "The King's Speech" goes, I was entertained, but not mesmerized. It's a good film, but not a great film. I don't want to own it. I'd like Colin Firth to win, since I've loved his work since "Pride and Prejudice" (as all good British girls do). But he was nominated last year in a part that moved me far more than this - moved me to tears, in fact. For the whole run time, a voice inside my head kept reminding me that I've seen this film before. More than once.

Actually, you can make a case that the two films are marginally similar. Both tell the story of a man who was basically an afterthought, and went on to a position of great power. Each needed the help of another man to help him get there. Both affected the course of history. Both have to do with a society affected by the advent of new technology. And they have one last thing in common - neither film is great.

I'm not sure, but I think I'm getting too jaded. Maybe I'm just not into film right now, although I am trying. But maybe it's society, that's changed, not just me. But the real question is whether or not the Academy has changed. We shall see.

Oscar Rant 2011

Just like the rest of the cinephiles in America, I was glued to my chair at 8:30 this morning, waiting to hear the bell go off that starts the Official Oscar Campaign. Usually, I have to tell my boss that I’ll be a bit late on Nod Day, but today I had the extra blessing of working from home, so as I set my day into motion, I had it on in the background.

I’ve heard people say that the Academy is full of nothing but yuppified, elitist snobs who wouldn’t know a good film if it hit them in their firmly ensconced in their seat buttocks. I’ve defended them against people who say that nobody ever HEARD of the films that are nominated, so who really cares. But I always defend them. The Oscars is my Super Bowl when the Colts don’t make it in. It’s the day I wait all year for. Hell, when I found out I was having SURGERY, the first thing out of my mouth was “Not during Oscar week, I’m not!”

But now they’ve even pissed ME off! I simply do not understand. There are Oscar RULES and they should be followed. And they’ve made a mistake so grievous that I just don’t think I can forgive them.

Christopher Nolan, the visionary director behind this year’s BEST film “Inception”, is NOT nominated in the direction category. He’s not there. Other people are there, and perhaps deservedly so. But he NEEDED to be there. And he’s just not.

Oh sure, he’s nominated for Screenplay. Like that really matters. And “Inception” IS nominated for Best Picture. But that doesn’t really matter either. He SHOULD be nominated. He DESERVES to be nominated. When TDK got robbed of its Best Picture nomination, the Academy rectified this by expanding the field to 10 films. Do we need to do the same for directors?

I don’t want to hear that it’s a “strong year for film”. No, it wasn’t. It’s the same as it always is. There’s a handful of films that deserve Oscar recognition. Unfortunately, many more films are nominated. This brings me to the snoozefest known as “Winter’s Bone”. This film was ok at best. It was slow. It was not original. It didn’t make me think. I forgot it the next day. Sure, Jennifer Lawrence was great, but that’s about it. BEST PICTURE? ARE YOU KIDDING ME? I know there’s ten films, but you are SERIOUSLY telling me that this was better than “The Town”?

So this year, in my Oscar quest, I have seen seven out of the ten Best Picture nominees. I will be seeing two of the remaining three by the end of the month. I have a handful of other films I need to see (such as “Blue Valentine” and “Biutiful”. I may get to them.

But if not, ok. At this point, I don’t really want to watch either of the Super Bowls.

New Year, New Take

I recently got a book called “501 Must-See Movies” from my godmother for Christmas. Inside is a checklist of all the films. I counted off the ones I had seen, which numbered about half. That’s a solid start. There are some favorites on there, and some I’m unfamiliar with. There are some classics I haven’t seen, and there are some of my most hated cinematic foes.

When I first started this blog, I realized that I have some biases. I don’t like romantic comedies and abhor all things Nicolas Cage-related. I don’t think Kate Hudson can act and I don’t care if Matthew takes his shirt off or leaves it on – he still sucks.

But above all I reserve a hatred for a few select films. One of these is “The Matrix”. I did see this in a theater upon initial release and thought it was a trumped up, green-soaked version of “Star Wars” (which I’m also not crazy about). But alas, the film is on the checklist and must be re-viewed and reviewed.

There are certain cinematic truths that are self-evident.
Keanu Reeves cannot act. He has a monotone look and an even worse voice. He’s boring.
The directors of this film will never again be able to match this success.
“The Matrix” is a technological wonder .
I AM capable of being wrong about a film. This film, although not great, is not that bad. In fact, I might even go so far as to say it’s quite good.

Now that I’m older and not as cinematically jaded, I can see that this is the millenium’s “Citizen Kane”, the film that puts me to sleep but still changed everything. It’s one of a handful of films whose mark is still present today. Even though the effects are dated now and have been repeated ad nauseum in every conceivable way, there’s still something to be said for being first on the scene.

With all that being said, though, you’ll notice I haven’t said much about the story. That’s cause there’s really not much to say. I appreciate the fact that they didn’t go for the obvious sell outs of killing Morpheus in the first film, but the story still is as old as time. I’m not one for philosophical thought, especially these days. It makes my head hurt. It was entertaining, but not distinctive.

So I guess it’s a sign that I’ve finally grown up. And I have been dared to watch the sequels. I don’t recall if I saw those in a theater – probably not. I think I actually but my foot down and told my ex-husband to see them on his own, which I think he did. I have agreed to watch the second one, but will probably pass on the third.

However, I didn’t put a time line on that stipulation. So maybe in about ten years I’ll look into it. :)